MUHAMMAD AZAM vs STATE and another
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 431, registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station City Sadiqabad. The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, contending that he was falsely implicated due to ulterior motives and malice on the part of the complainant. The prosecution opposed the petition, arguing that no malice existed and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required for the grant of pre-arrest bail. The Court examined the record and observed that the petitioner was a nominated accused with specific allegations. The Court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary concession, not a matter of right, intended to protect respectable citizens from humiliation, and is only available where the prosecution's case is demonstrably based on malice or ulterior motives. Finding that the petitioner failed to establish any such ulterior motive or malice, the Court concluded that no case for the concession of pre-arrest bail was made out. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
- Is pre-arrest bail a matter of right for an accused?
- What is the fundamental purpose of granting pre-arrest bail?
- Must an accused demonstrate malice or ulterior motive to be entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition the petitioner Muhammad Azim seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 431 dated 24.6.2011 registered under Section 489-F PPC at Police Station City Sadiqabad, District Rahimyarkhan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely involved in the case in order to achieve ulterior motive on the pretext of the complainant. FIR is concocted and based on malafide on the part of the complainant.
3. Learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Relying on Ibrahim Ghulam Mustafa vs. State (PLJ 2007 Cr.0 (Lahore) 1242) and Amir Zaheer vs The State (PLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1271), they contend that there was no any malice either on the part of the complainant or the police to rope in the accused in a false case, which is one of the essential ingredients for the entitlement of extra-ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. No case for pre-arrest bail is made out, therefore, he is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
4. I have the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner is nominated accused with specific allegation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any ulterior motive to falsely involve the petitioner. The grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary concession, which is only given to an accused in extraordinary circumstances because basic purpose and object of it is to avoid humiliation of a respectable and dignified citizen. Question of grant of pre-arrest bail to an accused does not arise in absence of ulterior motive either on the part of prosecution or. complainant. This concession cannot be claimed as a matter of right but can only be availed of where it is shown that the case of prosecution is based on malice and ulterior motive. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Ramzan and 2 others vs. The State (2007 P.Cr.LJ. 980) and Murad Khan vs Fazat-e-Subhan and another (PLD 1983 SC 82).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out a case of pre-arrest bail.
In view of the above discussion, this petition having no merit is dismissed.